Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Carmonized hammers under the IDPA microscope


MrBorland

Recommended Posts

I'm glad to see that my revolver was not the only one that had this issue. Last year, the individual at the safety check station checked for the presence of the hammer flag safety by jiggling the gun and listening for the rattle, and opened the cylinder and then tried to pull the trigger. This year, there were additional checks. The safety test rendered my firearm inoperable for the entire match and thankfully I had two staff members offer to let me borrow setups from them so I could complete the match.

Ok, let me see if I've got this straight. The person that did the equipment safety check broke your gun? That would piss me off beyond belief..... especially if the specific test was unannounced and ended up disqualifying me from the match!!!

BC

It would most definitely be worth pitching a fit and demanding the match fee back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 146
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Shadow, the ship has sailed and I'm remarkably patient. I got my stupid piece of wood, it wasn't the place I wanted or in the manner I wanted it to happen, but it happened anyway. I'm a glutton for punishment, I'm going back to Smith and Wesson next week to SO for an action three-gun style match for military cadets.

I'm curious how us shooters are supposed to know about a mysterious conversation held behind closed doors at Smith and Wesson? I just paid a fair price to get this 4" Model 66 all legit because I'm used to shooting junky crap since I am again, a shooter and not a gunsmith. Up to now all of my shooting has been with random crappy revolvers with issues because I don't know what to look for. I shot most of my sanctioned matches last season with a Model 67 I bought from a guy for 230 bucks, it was potentially used as a prop gun because it's covered in scratches and the front sight is all jacked up (uneven and slightly bent). Finally, I get my gun in time for the Indoor Nationals after dry firing every night and yadda yadda, you guys know how it is, and I can't shoot it. In ADDITION, there is now a potential ban on this gun because of precedence that no one was even informed of after the match? So now I'm expected to buy a new hammer and pay to have my gun shipped back to the gunsmith and have the hammer cut down, again, while leaving the tang intact and get it fitted, then get it shipped back to me? I mean, that's like 150 - 200 dollars in shipping, 100 for a hammer, 100+ for the work...

This is why shooting revolver is frustrating. I feel like you HAVE to be a gunsmith in order to avoid potential criseses mid shooting season, or have plenty of spare guns to cycle around. There's not a lot of people I know of that do legit work, two of them have posted on this thread and one of the two is busy with a law firm ;) Either way, I suppose I'll have to bring another gun to matches but I don't feel as if I'm out of compliance with a Carmonized-style hammer until it's specifically banned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did this same yahoo drop all of the 1911's slide on an empty chamber to see if the hammer dropped? It's sounds like the same thing.

Anytime we start customizing we take the risk that a breakage will become a big issue, Revo or Auto. A spare gun is always a good idea. Fitted spare parts are another. But if it's USPSA Production, Single Stack or IDPA you have to be real careful as there is very little give in those rules. I don't think they'd let me shoot my m29 with Russian cases either.

I have an APEX lightened hammer and it's real light, but has the notches for the safety, which I took out anyway, and still has the tang. Personally I just don't like the look of one without it. I didn't realize Carmonizing included removing the tang, kind of reminds me of the Speed Demon 1911 Hammers with no spur.

Edited by pskys2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the action will cycle with the cylinder open, somebody could hold a loose cartridge up against the recoil shield, with the primer against the firing pin hole, and snap the action to pop off an uncontained round.

Is it theoretically possible somebody could do something that stupid? Sure.

Is it an issue in the real world? Obviously not. But that's the kind of mentality you guys are dealing with here.

The cartridge might not be contained, but it would still be lined up with the barrel. Doubt if the finger pressure head space trick would allow ignition though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the action will cycle with the cylinder open, somebody could hold a loose cartridge up against the recoil shield, with the primer against the firing pin hole, and snap the action to pop off an uncontained round.

Is it theoretically possible somebody could do something that stupid? Sure.

Is it an issue in the real world? Obviously not. But that's the kind of mentality you guys are dealing with here.

The cartridge might not be contained, but it would still be lined up with the barrel. Doubt if the finger pressure head space trick would allow ignition though.

Hmmm......might have to try it with a primed case......

OK, just tried it (wearing gloves, glasses, and shooting muffs) and was finally able pop a primer that way, after about 15 tries. It's not easy to get the center of the primer lined up with the hole.

Edited by Carmoney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only people stupid enough to stick their fingers in to a gaurd is a OSHA or MSHA inspector, and from the looks of it lately, the safety personel that are being hired lately. I hope that nobody from work reads this.

The sad thing is, and the smith engineers should know this, is that the hammer will never make it to the firing pin unless the trigger is depress all the way to the back. The hammer block is a moot point as the trigger return slide will stop the hammer at all other positions except for the rear most position. Take the side plate off and the main springs, then play with it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the action will cycle with the cylinder open, somebody could hold a loose cartridge up against the recoil shield, with the primer against the firing pin hole, and snap the action to pop off an uncontained round.

Is it theoretically possible somebody could do something that stupid? Sure.

Is it an issue in the real world? Obviously not. But that's the kind of mentality you guys are dealing with here.

The cartridge might not be contained, but it would still be lined up with the barrel. Doubt if the finger pressure head space trick would allow ignition though.

Hmmm......might have to try it with a primed case......

OK, just tried it (wearing gloves, glasses, and shooting muffs) and was finally able pop a primer that way, after about 15 tries. It's not easy to get the center of the primer lined up with the hole.

Yea you're more likely to drop a round and have it go off by hitting a rock!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the action will cycle with the cylinder open, somebody could hold a loose cartridge up against the recoil shield, with the primer against the firing pin hole, and snap the action to pop off an uncontained round.

Is it theoretically possible somebody could do something that stupid? Sure.

Is it an issue in the real world? Obviously not. But that's the kind of mentality you guys are dealing with here.

The cartridge might not be contained, but it would still be lined up with the barrel. Doubt if the finger pressure head space trick would allow ignition though.

Hmmm......might have to try it with a primed case......

OK, just tried it (wearing gloves, glasses, and shooting muffs) and was finally able pop a primer that way, after about 15 tries. It's not easy to get the center of the primer lined up with the hole.

Yea you're more likely to drop a round and have it go off by hitting a rock!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Revoman, initially, the shooters were prohibited from loading magazines, speedloaders, or moonclips unless in the shooting bay and under the supervision of a staff member. Perhaps they were worried about some of these mystery bullets going off? Thankfully that quickly got cleared up and we were allowed to load mags/loaders in the building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know my old Colt Trooper MKIII didn't block the hammer with the cylinder open. You could snap away all day with an open cylinder, that's how it was designed. Would that pass this guys function test?

-pat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know my old Colt Trooper MKIII didn't block the hammer with the cylinder open. You could snap away all day with an open cylinder, that's how it was designed. Would that pass this guys function test?

-pat

Of course it would pass. This question is never does it need to have it or should it be there in the first place. The question is, has a engineered safety been removed from the firearm. JMB didn't engineer a FPB in his 1911. Yet some yahoo came along later and thought it a good idea to add one. IDPA does not care if you run a Series 70 or 80 frame. If you decide to run an series 80 you had better make sure the internal safeties (all lf them) are there and working as designed. Back to the question. Is the hammer block on the bolt an intended safety. If it is, then it needs to function as designed. If it is for function and not safety then fire up those grinders. I think this is one for IDPA to announce as they have with other locks and blocks from other firearms. My opinion is that it was a lockout devise was intended more to protect the firearm from idiot owner than to protect a would be victim from a slammed home cylinder. Since I don't have an active IDPA revolver that has this feature disabled, I have no dog in this and will just wait to hear on the ruling request already submitted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did this same yahoo drop all of the 1911's slide on an empty chamber to see if the hammer dropped?

They didn't do that on my 1911. They did check the functioning of the thumb safety and grip safety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm, an unnanounced equipment test, and if your gun fails, you're DQ'd? That's not designed to encourage participation.

Oh, and if you 're going to do a mechanical test on my firearm, and you break something, you're going to pay to fix it. If that means the match can't find someone to conduct the test, that's fine with me.

Ham-handed "testing" is on par with dropping. You had to handle my firearm, and dropped it onto concrete, and now it doesn't work? You'd better hope there's someone over in the S&W plant who can fix it real quick.

Edited by Patrick Sweeney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I found this thread the day after I cut my hammer to what I thought would be still acceptable for IDPA. Turns out maybe I was wrong. I really don't shoot much IDPA, but I wanted my gun to stay legal. Maybe I'll just cut it back some more and forget it altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I found this thread the day after I cut my hammer to what I thought would be still acceptable for IDPA. Turns out maybe I was wrong. I really don't shoot much IDPA, but I wanted my gun to stay legal. Maybe I'll just cut it back some more and forget it altogether.

Hold in there, man! Nothing has been decided one way or the other- yet. This whole deal has come about because there's not an exact guideline in the rulebook for what will and will not be checked on weapons. I think it will turn out in our favor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...